The comic achieves to explain and portray the struggle of film makers. Nowadays the digital art industry is very limited due to the fact that they cannot express what want to entirely because copyright laws are limiting them. Just like they mention in the comic, copyright laws are supposed to protect and promote creativity. But new artists, industries, technologies, even the advertising industry, are making the freedom of expression almost impossible. It seems almost frivolous the fact that large companies will charge small creators and filmmakers, who obviously do not have the means nor resources to clear the rights of trademark and copyright. As a non-American citizen, it is ironic how Americans promote the United States of America as a country where there is freedom of speech and expression. But simultaneously, there are a bunch of laws and law suits that limit creativity. This is a clear example of how creative industries have lost their focus from what it is really important, and now focus in making money.
Over the summer I worked at a communications agency. For most advertising campaigns, we couldn’t afford doing a photoshoot because of time and budget. Therefore, we got most of our images from websites such as istock and getty images. They usually have millions of royalty-free photographs, video footage, vector illustrations, and audio tracks to use for our campaigns as long as we paid for them. Prices vary between websites and content, but still very reasonable. I believe the whole concept of online, royalty free, stock photography providers is actually pretty smart.
In the case of trademark laws for logos. I understand why most of the time, even if it is fair use, has to be taken out of the picture frame. Companies spend large amounts of money to carefully place their logos in strategic places, specially where their image won’t be negatively affected. For example, a luxury car company might pay a movie to show off their expensive and luxurious car. Coca-Cola and McDonald’s probably has some sort of deal to sell only Coca-Cola at every McDonald’s restaurant in America. For these companies, exposing their logo is crucial. Therefore, society has created this popular culture where every time you show off the logo of a brand, without proper permission, might create some sort problem where money is in the middle of this.
I think the American court should make a greater effort to properly explain the terms of fair use in order to promote the freedom of expression of creators and artists. I understand that these laws are crucial when someone is trying gain a substantial benefit from other person’s work. But when this is the case with documentaries that are trying to capture and promote a part of history or create awareness of a social problem. The concept of fair use seems so vague that I believe lawyers can almost find their way around it and apply it when convenient.
Over the summer I worked at a communications agency. For most advertising campaigns, we couldn’t afford doing a photoshoot because of time and budget. Therefore, we got most of our images from websites such as istock and getty images. They usually have millions of royalty-free photographs, video footage, vector illustrations, and audio tracks to use for our campaigns as long as we paid for them. Prices vary between websites and content, but still very reasonable. I believe the whole concept of online, royalty free, stock photography providers is actually pretty smart.
In the case of trademark laws for logos. I understand why most of the time, even if it is fair use, has to be taken out of the picture frame. Companies spend large amounts of money to carefully place their logos in strategic places, specially where their image won’t be negatively affected. For example, a luxury car company might pay a movie to show off their expensive and luxurious car. Coca-Cola and McDonald’s probably has some sort of deal to sell only Coca-Cola at every McDonald’s restaurant in America. For these companies, exposing their logo is crucial. Therefore, society has created this popular culture where every time you show off the logo of a brand, without proper permission, might create some sort problem where money is in the middle of this.
I think the American court should make a greater effort to properly explain the terms of fair use in order to promote the freedom of expression of creators and artists. I understand that these laws are crucial when someone is trying gain a substantial benefit from other person’s work. But when this is the case with documentaries that are trying to capture and promote a part of history or create awareness of a social problem. The concept of fair use seems so vague that I believe lawyers can almost find their way around it and apply it when convenient.